memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Performers considered for VOY roles
Bujold ref I removed your Bujold reference from the Performers approached for Star Trek roles page, as it is for those performers who were approached for a role on Star Trek only, and not those who were cast. Bujold was indeed cast as Janeway and filmed for a few days, so she was not merely approached. Information on her can be found in the Background section of Kathryn Janeway and at her article.--31dot 01:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :I undid your removal of the Bujold reference from the Performers approached for Star Trek roles page. I respectfully contend that the exclusion of Geneviève Bujold from the page is incorrect, inconsistent, and compromises the integrity of the overall article. :This article documents performers who were approached for a role but ultimately never appeared in the cast list for the aired episode. "Approached" in this context of the present article ranges from performers who were trekers but never approached by the producers (Dave Thomas) to performers who the producers wanted but couldn't get (numerous), who were put under contract but never showed up (John Barrymore), and who made screen tests but failed to make the final cut (also numerous and Susan Gibney most notably). :These examples differ from Jeffery Hunter, who was "approached" for the TOS Captain's role and filmed a failed pilot ("The Cage") but whose footage made it into the cast list of an aired episode ("The Menagerie"). In contrast, there is no cast list for an aired episode with the name "Geneviève Bujold" on it. She was approached by the producers (like many others) and put under contract (like Barrymore) but--after a day-and-a-half on set—departed and her footage remains on the cutting room floor. :Compare her experience to Susan Gibney's (who is included in the article): a performer who made several screen tests (on set, in costume, and with other cast members) but was rejected by the studio. How do the experiences of Bujold and Gibney differ? (Answer: they don't) :Furthermore, excluding Bujold from the article seriously compromises the thoroughness of the overall article. It is a significant casting "what if" that is presently undocumented in an otherwise comprehensive article—on par with the revelations found in stories of Gibney and Barrymore.--TRHickey 16:28, June 20, 2010 (UTC) The article states that it is for "who have been approached for roles in the Star Trek franchise, but were ultimately not cast". If we want to change the scope of the article, we can, but as it is now I don't think such a description includes Bujold, who was cast but left the production. I would contend that Barrymore (who was cast but did not show up) should not be there, either. Gibney was not cast for those roles, so her inclusion is fine.--31dot 16:42, June 20, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm forced to agree with Hickey here. The article title is "performers approached for Trek roles." 31dot, you are having us discriminate to extreme tolerances what we will allow. That makes zero sense to me. The standard should be "you were approached for a Trek role, but for whatever reason (reason does not matter in terms of inclusion in the article, but should be mentioned in the article), you did not end up in the role." What's wrong with that, and how does that break proper scope of including all information? Honestly, sometimes I think newer members are right when they say we're closeminded to new ideas, no matter how sane they are... --OuroborosCobra talk 18:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Seriously, this seems as easy as changing a couple of words in the opening paragraph to make it actually able to include everything under the article title. It isn't rocket science, and does not cause article rot. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:40, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :The crux of the matter is how literally to define the word "cast"--is it limited to performers who were approached but never placed under contract or never appeared in the cast of an aired episode or movie. The former definition reflects a legal nuance that is best left to agents, producers and their lawyers. The latter seems a more appropriate definition here: can the Wiki reader see the performer in a role for which they were approached?" :As a more practical matter, drawing arbitrary distinctions between calls-to-agents and contracts and between multiple screen tests and a day-and-a-half on set are boundaries that cannot be unequivocally documented to the satisfaction of an encyclopedic work such as Memory Alpha and are a distraction to the reader. :The appropriateness of the Bujold and Barrymore references were raised earlier in this discussion by Tim Thomason and Lt. Washburn. The case is made that there is a continuum of reasons why a performer does not appear in a role for which they are approached. If it is necessary, as 31dot suggests, to change the scope, it should read: ::This is a list of performers who have been approached for roles in the Star Trek franchise, but ultimately did not appear in the role. Performers listed here have been verified as having been approached for a role on Trek. :Note the change eliminates the contended word "cast" from the scope, which was never part of the article title in the first place. I will wait for a response before effecting said change in the scope or undoing the removed Bujord reference. :On a related matter, however, I think the Dave Thomas anecdote should be removed. In this case, the article states that only Thomas claims that he tried to get a role on TNG but the producers but "didn't want to hear from," making him indistinguishable from any other Star Trek wannabe.--TRHickey 19:15, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :Not to prolong this discussion, but I just re-read the entry for David Rappaport in the article, "who was cast to play Kivas Fajo in the episode The Most Toys (episode)" (emphasis added) where several scenes were shot before the actor took his own life. This tragic example also speaks to the need to apply some flexibility in drawing boundaries between what should and should not be included in the article.--TRHickey 19:40, June 20, 2010 (UTC) ::I've gone ahead and made the change in the opening. The distinction between not appearing without casting and not appearing with casting is a difference for the lawyers over at SAG, not the purpose of this article, which is performers who were approached for Star Trek roles. I agree that Dave Thomas probably still doesn't belong, as it isn't verifiable that he was ever approached for a role, indeed it seems he was not. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:18, June 20, 2010 (UTC) Changing it is fine with me, which I implied in the first place, I was just going by what the article said, not "discriminating to extreme tolerances". It said "was not cast". It seemed to be pretty black-and-white, common sense to me, that it would not include people who were cast. I would have even been in favor of changing "cast" to "credited", which was the intent of Hickey, but the way it is now is just fine.--31dot 00:00, June 21, 2010 (UTC) I also do not appreciate the suggestion that I am not open to new ideas, when I said that "if we want to change the scope, we can".--31dot 00:05, June 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Per this discussion, I re-added Bujold and removed Dave Thomas. Here's the text for future reference: ::: ' (born 1949) is a Canadian actor and comedian who was not approached for a role on TNG – rather, it was the other way around. According to an interview in Star Trek 30 Years, Thomas explains he would jump at the chance to appear on Trek, "as long as I don't have to wear a lot of latex like co-star Andrea Martin did when she played a Ferengi ." Thomas claimed that he tried to get a role on TNG, but "they didn't want to hear from" him.'' :::Thomas first achieved fame as a cast member of the Canadian sketch comedy series ''Second City Television, better known simply as SCTV. Among the celebrities he impersonated on this show was TOS star DeForest Kelley. He also shared an Emmy Award and five Emmy nominations as a writer on the show. He later starred as Russell Norton on the hit sitcom Grace Under Fire for five seasons. He has also appeared in such films as Stripes (1981), Boris and Natasha (1992), Coneheads (1993), and Rat Race (2001) and voiced Tuke the Moose in the 2003 Disney film Brother Bear.'' :::– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:34, June 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Minor edits to the Bujold entry contributed by Cleanse: moved it to the top of the list of Janeway contenders as she was the producers first choice for the role, and changed the phrasing to be less spectulative about the facts of the matter (changed "quit " to "left" and removed the reference to 1½ days as that was how much shooting was done but not necessarily the date of her departure). More details are available in the referenced main article so there is no need to belabor this article. ::Thanks to all for their contributions to this discussion. --TRHickey 01:07, June 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::And moved back into alphabetical order, like the rest of the list. Everything else on the page is in alphabetical order, so should this section be. -- sulfur 01:30, June 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::: I didn't notice that organizing principle to the page. Thanks for fixing that.--TRHickey 04:48, June 21, 2010 (UTC) Revisiting Bujold I'm sorry to bring back a debate that was settled years ago, but I think Bujold needs to go back to her own article. It appears that a shot of Bujold's hands remained in the final cut of Caretaker. The shot is this one: http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x01a/caretaker_0261.jpg which is just before Voyager was hit by the distortion. A comparison can be seen in this video: https://youtu.be/sbl3cGQ5vxI?t=185 In light of the fact that Bujold's hands are used in a clip that aired in the final cut, I think Bujold is a Trek performer in her own right, and therefor merits her own page. Lastly, I would also point out that we have a page for Trisha Burton who also appeared only as a hand-double for Janeway. --- Jaz 02:10, February 14, 2019 (UTC) Geneviève Bujold Quote? Didn't she say " I wasn't trained to play a cartoon character" or something similar"? Tough Little Ship 19:11, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I thought that was just a rumour. Rebel Strike 20:47, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) Categories On her page, she has Category:Performers and Category:VOY performers. Since she never actually appeared in the final version, can she still be considered as a real performer in this way? -[[User:Platypus222|'''Platypus Man]] | ''Talk'' 16:20, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC) :I'm sure she got a paycheck for being a performer/VOY performer, so I'm not sure I see that it hurts anything. --Alan del Beccio Elizabeth or Nicole? The article says that Kate Mulgrew wanted Janeways name to be changed from Elizabeth to Kathryn... nearly (but not) all other informations about that topic say, that the name was changed from Nicole to Kathryn. Even the picture of Geneviève Bujold referrs to the role as Nicole... what is correct? -- 01:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC) :According to Stephen Edward Poe's book Star Trek: Voyager - A Vision of the Future, it was changed to avoid conflict with natural scientist Elizabeth Janeway. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) ::So why does it say "Nicole" now? --Bp 02:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) :::Changed from "Elisabeth" to "Nicole" because of the scientist at the character design stage, changed from "Nicole" to "Kathryn" at Mulgrew's suggestion. I think. Move I think that her article should be moved to Performers whose scenes were cut as she filmed her scenes which were replaced in the final version because of the actress change. I see no point why she should have her own article on MA. Opinions? – Tom 20:12, September 12, 2010 (UTC) *'Mild oppose' of a move. I think this is a little different situation as it involves a lead character. That said, I think that if this is moved(which I will not stand in the way of) it should be moved to Performers considered for Star Trek roles, or the small reference to her already on that page should be removed.--31dot 01:19, September 13, 2010 (UTC) *'Oppose' to either move. Since Bujold was actually cast in the role, it's not the same as a performer whose scenes were cut; and Performers considered for Star Trek roles is already a rather long article. This can be considered a spin-out from that article, with the sentence remaining in the article as part of . The article itself is justified as a fairly important element in the creation of Star Trek: Voyager. —Josiah Rowe 03:06, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :This could be considered almost a third category of actors- ones who were considered, ones who were cut, and ones who filmed and quit.--31dot 10:54, September 13, 2010 (UTC) Memorizing lines The actors have to memorize seven pages of dialogue a day? -- 01:40, May 4, 2011 (UTC) :In television, yes. That was apparently one of her problems.--31dot 08:56, May 4, 2011 (UTC) ::In Earthquake Geneviève Bujold was great and truly was a star. Sometimes, one has to walk away from a script that is not right for you or has director/stars/staff that is not compatible with your skill set or personality. She was and is truly a wonderful and great actress. Appearance in Juggernaut Is it just me, or does she appear in 5x21 Juggernaut at about 13:40 when Chakotay says "We'll meet you in transporter room one," it looks like that's her in the background as an engineering crewman? :It's just you. Probably someone who looks similar; Bujold really disliked the mechanics of TV production, which is why she left the show. 31dot (talk) 10:39, July 24, 2013 (UTC) ::No Bujold on the call sheets for "Juggernaut", too. Tom (talk) 17:14, July 25, 2013 (UTC) :::It's Christine Delgado who played Susan Nicoleti but is uncredited here. Delgado was to have been Bujold's double in the same way Sue Henley (who also played Ensign Brooks) was for Mulgrew. When Bujold left Delgado remained. The info about Delgado was in the ST magazine in the 90's. Lt.Lovett (talk) 15:36, August 29, 2013 (UTC) Merge redux Why does Bujold have an own article and David Rappaport is part of the article Performers considered for Star Trek roles? Rappaport filmed more scenes on more days as Bujold. Finally, she was not part of any released Star Trek production and should be on the aforementioned list. Tom (talk) 15:22, December 13, 2015 (UTC) *'Support' merge, as per reasoning -- Sennim (talk) 15:27, December 13, 2015 (UTC) *'Support' merge. However, I do think it might be worth keeping in mind that this has already come up in a post above (under the subheading "move"). -- Defiant (talk) 15:44, December 13, 2015 (UTC) Sure it was discussed above but without any rational reasoning. See the comments and you'll find no real reason why her short Star Trek time should be handled completely different than the time of others. And 31dot agreed to this merge suggestion in his first comment, too. Tom (talk) 15:55, December 13, 2015 (UTC) :As brought up in that discussion, the Performers Considered article is very long and should probably be split up somehow, probably by series. I also suggested a separate article for those who filmed scenes but left the production(which would include Bujold and Rappaport, at least). 31dot (talk) 20:25, December 13, 2015 (UTC) *'Comment': I think we run the risk of entering into two separate, but intertwined discussions here; a merge discussed here and which I still fully endorse, and a split discussion which should be treated separately (especially since it concerns another article into which this one is suggested to be merged with) after this one is decided upon.--Sennim (talk) 11:55, December 14, 2015 (UTC) Merged. Tom (talk) 10:56, December 24, 2015 (UTC) Patty Duke RIP I can't edit this page due to a browser problem but can someone mention her recent death in her listing please. -- RayBell (talk) 08:18, April 9, 2016 (UTC) Actresses considered for Seven of Nine's role Found this. http://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2016/08/09/star-trek-voyager-15-actresses-considered-seven-nine Is there any other citable documentation that can confirm these? --LauraCC (talk) 21:17, August 15, 2016 (UTC)